exhibit i part 2 - cmu · the court should deny marvell’s jmol and new trial motions on...

EXHIBIT I Part 2

Case 2:09-cv-00290-NBF Document 874-21 Filed 05/03/13 of 14

15

The Court Should Deny Marvell’s JMOL andNew Trial Motions on Infringement and Validity

NLD: Using Marvell’s documents and testimony, Dr. McLaughlin showed that the NLD’s FIR filters are part of the “branch metric”computation

Dr. McLaughlin’s infringement testimony was compelling

P-Demo 7, at 86 and 89


16


Simulators: Using Marvell’s documents and testimony, Dr. McLaughlin demonstrated that the simulators are “detectors”that operate on “signal samples”


P-279

P-Demo 7 at 113


17


Even apart from copying, CMU presented ample evidence of Marvell’s intent to induce or contribute to infringement

CMU’s evidence of Marvell’s intent was compelling

P-1922

On JMOL, Marvell’s claimed “good faith” does not overcome the ample evidence that Marvell had knowledge or was willfully blind to its own and its customers’ infringing use

P-1920


18


JMOL: Expert testimony explaining how the accused technology meets the claim limitations is substantial evidence that precludes judgment as a matter of law.See ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

New Trial: Under the expert credibility instructions Marvell proposed, the jury was entitled to believe Dr. McLaughlin’s testimony, and the infringement verdict cannot be a miscarriage of justice.See William A. Graham Co. v. Haughey, 646 F.3d 138, 143 (3d Cir. 2011) (“The ‘shocks the conscience’or ‘miscarriage of justice’ standard for a grant of a new trial exists “to ensure that a district court does not substitute its judgment of the facts and the credibility of the witnesses for that of the jury’”);Jackson v. City of Pittsburgh, No. 07-111, 2011 WL 3443951, at *8 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 8, 2011)

Dr. McLaughlin’s testimony alone dooms Marvell’s JMOL and new trial motions on infringement



19


Worstell does not teach a “set of signal dependent branch metric functions”

The asserted claims of the CMU patents are not obvious in view of Worstell

Dr. McLaughlin’s validity testimony was compelling

Even though it was Marvell’s burden to prove invalidity by clear and convincing evidence, Dr. McLaughlin demonstrated, for example:


20


12/18/12 Tr. at 56:1-9, discussing P-Demo 3 at 59


Dr. McLaughlin made clear that the CMU invention requires a “set” of signal dependent branch metric functions


21P-Demo 3 at 44



Dr. McLaughlin made clear that Worstell does not teach a “set” of signal dependent branch metric functions

12/18/12 Tr. at 64:14-23


22


12/18/12 Tr. at 67:19-68:9


Dr. McLaughlin made clear that Worstell does not teach a “set” of “signal dependent branch metric functions”

DX-187, col. 10:48-67

Worstell ’251 Patent


23


Dr. McLaughlin made clear that Worstell does not teach a “set” of “signal dependent branch metric functions”


12/18/12 Tr. at 68:25-69:12, discussing D-Demo 12-14


24


12/18/12 Tr. at 70:20-25; 71:25-72:3; discussing P-161


Worstell’s view confirms Dr. McLaughlin’s opinions


25


12/18/12 Tr. at 72:4-25; P-Demo 7 at 110


Secondary considerations also confirmed Dr. McLaughlin’s opinions


26

In sum, Marvell’s motions fail


CMU carried its burden on infringement and presented compelling evidence of validity Even aside from circumstantial evidence of infringement (e.g., copying, instructions,

emails), CMU’s “read-on” analysis was compelling

Marvell’s arguments are misplaced given the post-trial posture The Court may not assess credibility of the witnesses or substitute its judgment

of the factsAgrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (JMOL); Jackson v. City of Pittsburgh,No. 07-111, 2011 WL 3443951, at *8 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 8, 2011) (New Trial)

The jury was entitled to credit Dr. McLaughlin’s testimony over competing testimony from Drs. Proakis and Blahut

Marvell’s evidence (Drs. Wu, Blahut, Proakis’ testimony) isirrelevant on JMOL The Court must “disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that

the jury is not required to believe.”Spectralytics, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 649 F.3d 1336, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

On new trial, Marvell cannot show that the infringement and validity verdicts “shock the conscience” or are a “miscarriage of justice”


27

Carnegie Mellon University’s Presentationon Marvell’s JMOL and Motion for

New Trial (Non-Damages) – Dkt. 805

May 1 – 2, 2013


exhibit i part 2 - cmu · the court should deny marvell’s jmol and new trial motions on...

Documents